Argumentative writing is more persuasive and strong-minded towards a particular position in a debate, and will argue for the merits of that position over another in a debate. The position paper takes a stance and argues for its merits, and usually does not engage other positions. Please read the position writing for comparison after you read this page.
The following is an essay on the famed historical debate, the murder of the Princes in the Tower.
Richard III and the Princes in the Tower The question of who murdered Edward V and his brother, Richard, Duke of York, has remained one of the most famous and enduring of historical mysteries. Part of the fascination is that the victims were two children, aged twelve and ten, who had the best claims to the English throne. The murders were the climax of the Wars of the Roses, the beginning of the end of an intermittent thirty year conflict. Much has been written on this feud between the royal houses of Lancaster and York. Before the release of Josephine Tey’s The Daughter of Time in the 1950’s, it was widely believed that their uncle was the prime suspect. However, the novel popularized the purported innocence of Richard III, who claimed the throne after he had the Princes proclaimed illegitimate. Yet as engaging as The Daughter of Time was, the fact remains that there has been no convincing theory, then or since, to fill the void of who committed the murder. Richard III remains the most likely person to order their deaths.
In terms of blood claims, the House of York had the best claim to the throne, but the Yorkist king Edward IV died young, leaving as his heir, his son, Edward V, and if he died, his brother Richard. The political chaos that erupted after the king’s unexpected death enabled the king’s youngest brother, Richard, to seize the throne as Richard III. However, the two Princes remained a threat because while their uncle Richard declared them bastards on the pretext of Edward IV and Queen Elizabeth’s marriage being bigamous, many rightfully believed them to be false. The evidence of the threat is attested by the number of contemporary conspiracies that were hatched to restore Edward V to his inheritance.
Conclusively, the most definitive answer as to what happened to the Princes in the Tower is uncertainty. As the best claimants for the throne, the Princes were vulnerable to assassination. They were last seen before Richard’s coronation in 1483. The list of the accused consists of the man who usurped them, Richard III; one of his greatest supporters, Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham; the obscure Lancastrian claimant who usurped Richard in turn, Henry Tudor; or his mother and greatest ally, Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond.
What reason did the suspects have to kill the Princes? All had claims to the throne, though Margaret was excluded because she was a woman and threw her support behind her son. Richard had the best and clearest motivations to murder the Princes. He had recently taken the throne, and the threat from the Princes--or their many supporters--was very real to him. Richard was unpopular and believed to be a false usurper. While Buckingham had supported Richard III and gained many financial and political benefits as a result, it remains possible that he murdered the Princes on Richard’s behalf. However, his latter acts of support for Tudor and dying in the rebellion do not make sense lest Buckingham recognized that killing the Princes was political suicide. Henry Tudor had a dubious claim to the throne, and was only considered a possible candidate after the Princes vanished. Before the murder, Margaret Beaufort had tried to regain her son’s title as Count of Richmond. She did not forward Tudor’s claims to the throne until after the rumors of the murders proliferated.
From a practical standpoint, Richard III was the only one of the four suspects who had the means to commit the murder. He had the Princes under guard in the Tower of London and no one had permission to access them without his written consent. Henry Tudor was exiled in Brittany at the time. Buckingham was not in London when the murders took place, nor did he have anything to gain from the murders. While the theory that Margaret Beaufort arranged to have the Princes murdered was popularized by Philippa Gregory’s novel The White Queen, it has no basis in fact. She did not have access to the Tower of London, nor did she have a real motive at this point. As Weirs sums up: “The most damning evidence is the simple fact that the Princes disappeared for good...under the King’s protection” and Richard III never spoke of them again (164).
Thirdly, while motive and means are not enough to convict someone by trial, the fact remains that despite the many inventive, and quite ingenious, methods by which his supporters have attempted to exonerate their hero from his crimes, Richard III remains the most probable murderer. His supporters, so zealous in their cause, have earned their own epithet as Ricardians. The Ricardians, like Tey, have put forward several theories which either lay the blame for the murders on someone else, developed amazing theories of the Princes’ miraculous survival, or a bizarre amalgamation of the two. The evidence for these are flimsy, based on Richard III’s portrait, being “sensitive” and “arresting,” (32-33) and various claims that are unsupported by the actual contemporary historical sources, and are undermined by the Princes’ bones that were found during Charles II’s reign. Ricardians claim that Richard III has been maligned by Tudor propaganda, but his reputation was already very poor before Henry Tudor set foot in England after his exile. In fact, Richard’s unpopularity was the very reason that the rebellion happened and even more importantly, why it succeeded. He was so despised by his allies that they betrayed him by the droves at the Battle of Bosworth, where Richard III was killed in battle.
While Richard III may have had many positive qualities, whatever good attributes he had do not alter the fact that he was a ruthless man who lived in a brutal age. The fact that he executed friend and foe alike during his usurpation attests to his willingness to use violence as a means to an end. To declare Richard an innocent victim of character assassination belies the fact that two young children were murdered on his behalf, as well as other innocents. It was in Richard III’s best interests to deny his involvement in the murders, yet he never mentioned the Princes for the remainder of his life. Ricardians “share a marked characteristic of their hero, an invincible reluctance to face facts” (Seward 199). It is ironic that while many fret about the posthumous libel against a former monarch, there is little compassion for the two young princes who were murdered.
Works Cited
Gregory, Philippa. The White Queen. Touchstone: New York, 2013. Print.
Seward, Desmond. Richard III: England’s Black Legend. Pegasus Books: New York, 1983. Print.
Tey, Josephine. The Daughter of Time. Washington Square Press: New York, 1951. Print.
Weir, Alison. The Princes in the Tower. The Random House Publishing Group: New York, 1992. Print.
The following is an essay on the famed historical debate, the murder of the Princes in the Tower.
Richard III and the Princes in the Tower
The question of who murdered Edward V and his brother, Richard, Duke of York, has remained one of the most famous and enduring of historical mysteries. Part of the fascination is that the victims were two children, aged twelve and ten, who had the best claims to the English throne. The murders were the climax of the Wars of the Roses, the beginning of the end of an intermittent thirty year conflict. Much has been written on this feud between the royal houses of Lancaster and York. Before the release of Josephine Tey’s The Daughter of Time in the 1950’s, it was widely believed that their uncle was the prime suspect. However, the novel popularized the purported innocence of Richard III, who claimed the throne after he had the Princes proclaimed illegitimate. Yet as engaging as The Daughter of Time was, the fact remains that there has been no convincing theory, then or since, to fill the void of who committed the murder. Richard III remains the most likely person to order their deaths.
In terms of blood claims, the House of York had the best claim to the throne, but the Yorkist king Edward IV died young, leaving as his heir, his son, Edward V, and if he died, his brother Richard. The political chaos that erupted after the king’s unexpected death enabled the king’s youngest brother, Richard, to seize the throne as Richard III. However, the two Princes remained a threat because while their uncle Richard declared them bastards on the pretext of Edward IV and Queen Elizabeth’s marriage being bigamous, many rightfully believed them to be false. The evidence of the threat is attested by the number of contemporary conspiracies that were hatched to restore Edward V to his inheritance.
Conclusively, the most definitive answer as to what happened to the Princes in the Tower is uncertainty. As the best claimants for the throne, the Princes were vulnerable to assassination. They were last seen before Richard’s coronation in 1483. The list of the accused consists of the man who usurped them, Richard III; one of his greatest supporters, Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham; the obscure Lancastrian claimant who usurped Richard in turn, Henry Tudor; or his mother and greatest ally, Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond.
What reason did the suspects have to kill the Princes? All had claims to the throne, though Margaret was excluded because she was a woman and threw her support behind her son. Richard had the best and clearest motivations to murder the Princes. He had recently taken the throne, and the threat from the Princes--or their many supporters--was very real to him. Richard was unpopular and believed to be a false usurper. While Buckingham had supported Richard III and gained many financial and political benefits as a result, it remains possible that he murdered the Princes on Richard’s behalf. However, his latter acts of support for Tudor and dying in the rebellion do not make sense lest Buckingham recognized that killing the Princes was political suicide. Henry Tudor had a dubious claim to the throne, and was only considered a possible candidate after the Princes vanished. Before the murder, Margaret Beaufort had tried to regain her son’s title as Count of Richmond. She did not forward Tudor’s claims to the throne until after the rumors of the murders proliferated.
From a practical standpoint, Richard III was the only one of the four suspects who had the means to commit the murder. He had the Princes under guard in the Tower of London and no one had permission to access them without his written consent. Henry Tudor was exiled in Brittany at the time. Buckingham was not in London when the murders took place, nor did he have anything to gain from the murders. While the theory that Margaret Beaufort arranged to have the Princes murdered was popularized by Philippa Gregory’s novel The White Queen, it has no basis in fact. She did not have access to the Tower of London, nor did she have a real motive at this point. As Weirs sums up: “The most damning evidence is the simple fact that the Princes disappeared for good...under the King’s protection” and Richard III never spoke of them again (164).
Thirdly, while motive and means are not enough to convict someone by trial, the fact remains that despite the many inventive, and quite ingenious, methods by which his supporters have attempted to exonerate their hero from his crimes, Richard III remains the most probable murderer. His supporters, so zealous in their cause, have earned their own epithet as Ricardians. The Ricardians, like Tey, have put forward several theories which either lay the blame for the murders on someone else, developed amazing theories of the Princes’ miraculous survival, or a bizarre amalgamation of the two. The evidence for these are flimsy, based on Richard III’s portrait, being “sensitive” and “arresting,” (32-33) and various claims that are unsupported by the actual contemporary historical sources, and are undermined by the Princes’ bones that were found during Charles II’s reign. Ricardians claim that Richard III has been maligned by Tudor propaganda, but his reputation was already very poor before Henry Tudor set foot in England after his exile. In fact, Richard’s unpopularity was the very reason that the rebellion happened and even more importantly, why it succeeded. He was so despised by his allies that they betrayed him by the droves at the Battle of Bosworth, where Richard III was killed in battle.
While Richard III may have had many positive qualities, whatever good attributes he had do not alter the fact that he was a ruthless man who lived in a brutal age. The fact that he executed friend and foe alike during his usurpation attests to his willingness to use violence as a means to an end. To declare Richard an innocent victim of character assassination belies the fact that two young children were murdered on his behalf, as well as other innocents. It was in Richard III’s best interests to deny his involvement in the murders, yet he never mentioned the Princes for the remainder of his life. Ricardians “share a marked characteristic of their hero, an invincible reluctance to face facts” (Seward 199). It is ironic that while many fret about the posthumous libel against a former monarch, there is little compassion for the two young princes who were murdered.
Works Cited
Gregory, Philippa. The White Queen. Touchstone: New York, 2013. Print.
Seward, Desmond. Richard III: England’s Black Legend. Pegasus Books: New York, 1983. Print.
Tey, Josephine. The Daughter of Time. Washington Square Press: New York, 1951. Print.
Weir, Alison. The Princes in the Tower. The Random House Publishing Group: New York, 1992. Print.